Why verbal/written warnings if 'at will' employment?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MI

Why do companies generally give a verbal, then a written warning before terminating an employee, if most states are "at will"?

As I understand the law, a company can term you at any time, with or without cause. Yet, I have family members in management (Director level and above) at Fortune 500 companies, and they have to go through EXCRUCIATING documentation and process to fire an employee.

I ask this since I was just terminated from a California-based Fortune 500 company with NO verbal warning, no written warning - notta. Just that I (apparently) angered a manager by not doing jumping jacks at a new assignment that would have required 100% travel. I complained about it, and he fired me for it.

(HR got involved, and told me there were would be an investigatory process that included a written summary of what I reportedly did wrong, along with recommendations on next steps - likely a verbal warning and/or coaching. This written summary would be sent to me for review, and I'd have an opportunity to respond. Also, they told me that I could ask for a second HR person to review the situation if I didn't trust her fairness/impartiality. Of course, this never happened - I was terminated without getting the opportunity promised by HR - I never saw a write-up. Never got a chance to respond. So, the promised process was completely ignored..)

I'm guessing I don't have a case legally? Yet, my spouse has had to go through all sorts of documentation - including verbal and MULTIPLE written warnings before she's been able to term employees before.

So, what gives?

Thanks..

PS: I am above 40, and 100% travel is much more difficult / impossible for someone this age who is established in the community, etc. This new assignment would have completely changed my life - I would have never seen my family, been able to conduct life outside of the company, etc. I was also told by the manager who got me whacked "I don't care if you have to travel on a Sunday and miss your daughter's birthday to attend a Monday 7 AM meeting in another city - you WILL be at that meeting, and you will not B*TCH about it". Not sure if that changes anything..

A company doesn't have to warn you that you're in danger of being fired, but I would think that the affected employee would appreciate the warning so they could terminate whatever prompted it, i.e., not filing required reports on time, constant tardiness, spending too much time on the internet for non-job related purposes, etc.

It wasn't illegal for the company to begin requiring you to travel constantly. And it wouldn't have been illegal for you to resign because of it.

The written warning structure was put in not to adhere to law, but to try to minimize the very costly procedure of firing old employees and hiring and training new ones.

By making managers THINK before they fire, they minimize the loss of excellent employees by managers that are in the grips of a temporary anger.

Of course, there is also nothing that says that a problem large enough or offensive enough cannot cause the book to be thrown out the window.

An employee that is tardy gets written up to change the behavior. An employee that threatens another with bodily violence gets the door... at minimum.

Yep - that's (IMHO) what happened here..

New manager (in the past 2 weeks) didn't want me on his team in the first place - but was forced to take me.

When I complained about the travel, he went to the Sr. Director, Worldwide - and "fanned the flames" (ie: made me sound like an ungrateful troublemaker). Sr. Director guy is known to be tempermental/quick to react. And, he hit him up with a situation at a bad time - and the guy reacted/flew off the handle and (probably) said "bleep him - he's gone".

My problem is that I don't think I did a THING wrong aside from say "um...guys...this is gonna take me away from my family" / etc. I didn't do anything immoral, illegal or unethical (the usual reasons to get fired). All I did was tweak them off (quite inadvertently). Yet, they shot me in the head in a reactionary way.

With the no verbal/no written warning, do I have a case? Talking to my brother in law, who's a Senior Manager at a Fortune 10 company, his reaction was "I don't think they can do that". Same thing with my wife - a Director at a F500 company..neither one thinks they can term me without verbal warning first, then written warning..

We also just had a situation where we did a big layoff (500+ employees). Each term'd emp got 4+ months severance - I got squat. At a minimum, this seems like they were just trying to push me out without having to pay severance. So, I'm considering going after them for trying to just avoid paying me the same severance as all the other term'd employees..

Thx..

paslaz said:

Yep - that's (IMHO) what happened here..

New manager (in the past 2 weeks) didn't want me on his team in the first place - but was forced to take me.

When I complained about the travel, he went to the Sr. Director, Worldwide - and "fanned the flames" (ie: made me sound like an ungrateful troublemaker). Sr. Director guy is known to be tempermental/quick to react. And, he hit him up with a situation at a bad time - and the guy reacted/flew off the handle and (probably) said "bleep him - he's gone".

My problem is that I don't think I did a THING wrong aside from say "um...guys...this is gonna take me away from my family" / etc. I didn't do anything immoral, illegal or unethical (the usual reasons to get fired). All I did was tweak them off (quite inadvertently). Yet, they shot me in the head in a reactionary way.

With the no verbal/no written warning, do I have a case? Talking to my brother in law, who's a Senior Manager at a Fortune 10 company, his reaction was "I don't think they can do that". Same thing with my wife - a Director at a F500 company..neither one thinks they can term me without verbal warning first, then written warning..

We also just had a situation where we did a big layoff (500+ employees). Each term'd emp got 4+ months severance - I got squat. At a minimum, this seems like they were just trying to push me out without having to pay severance. So, I'm considering going after them for trying to just avoid paying me the same severance as all the other term'd employees..

Thx..

Click to expand...

You can take your employee handbook to a lawyer to see if the procedure rises to the standard of a contract...

But I wouldn't count on it.

Have you tried complaining directly to the HR department?

With the no verbal/no written warning, do I have a case? Talking to my brother in law, who's a Senior Manager at a Fortune 10 company, his reaction was "I don't think they can do that". Same thing with my wife - a Director at a F500 company..neither one thinks they can term me without verbal warning first, then written warning.

Then they are both wrong. Ask them to show you the statute that says you have to have both a verbal and a written warning before you can be fired, and ask them how that non-existant statute would apply in a situation where an employee was caught red-handed committing sabotage, or assaulting a co-worker, or with his hand in the cash drawer and his pockets full of cash.

Do you really think the law would require to give such an employee only a verbal warning, and then a written warning? Are you seriously telling me the law would require the employer to give the employee two more chances to steal, or sabotage, or assault, before the employee could be fired?

Just because they work for companies who would make such a requirement does not make it law.

Employers generally use progressive discipline systems (a series of write-ups and warnings prior to termination of employment) for two reasons. One is to give the employee notification of problems and the opportunity to improve performance, which ideally reduces turnover. The other is to document problems with an employee in order to defeat entitlement to unemployment benefits following termination, so as to minimize increases in the employer's unemployment tax rate.

It is not illegal to fire an employee without using progressive discipline, even if the company's usual procedure is to use it.

You haven't given any facts that indicate that the termination of your employment violated any employment laws.

Severance pay is not required unless a contract exists that says otherwise.

Keep in mind that your Fortune 500 connections said they "didn't think" that you could be terminated without verbal/written warnings. Both would benefit from doing some research because captains of industry are losing their jobs in this economy as well as the foot soldiers.

You have no case.

Hot Topic said:

Severance pay is not required unless a contract exists that says otherwise.

Keep in mind that your Fortune 500 connections said they "didn't think" that you could be terminated without verbal/written warnings. Both would benefit from doing some research because captains of industry are losing their jobs in this economy as well as the foot soldiers.

You have no case.

Click to expand...

Further, I bet neither one of your connections were asked, "If you decided to change a person's responsibilities and job and they refused, would you fire them?"

A lot of companies have very specific discipline procedures in order to control the authority of potentially despotic supervisors. Plus, you might be surprised at how many corporations have these requirements because they, too, think it's a legal requirement. I had dinner not long ago with several friends, one of which (an upper-management HR employee of a multi-national corporation) told another (recently fired) that she had legal recourse for all kinds of off-the-wall reasons.

Clt747 said:

A lot of companies have very specific discipline procedures in order to control the authority of potentially despotic supervisors. Plus, you might be surprised at how many corporations have these requirements because they, too, think it's a legal requirement. I had dinner not long ago with several friends, one of which (an upper-management HR employee of a multi-national corporation) told another (recently fired) that she had legal recourse for all kinds of off-the-wall reasons.

Click to expand...

I have heard that too... usually by folks that should know better.

in almost every case, it is because they are quoting a company policy that seemed to have the sound and feel of law....

Unfortunately, it's hard to refute conventional "wisdom". Most people know what they know because it's something they've always heard from other people who think they know because they've always heard it too.

He didn't read me my rights
We're entitled to a jury of our peers
He can't give me a ticket because I made it to my driveway
It's illegal to drive barefoot

There are a lot of myths out there.

Another reason is that polls of jurors believe in large numbers that it's more important that justice be done than following the letter of the law. The law may be clear, but the outcome of a trial? Not as much. That's part of why suits technically without merit get settled.